Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So Why Didn't Musharrif Claim Executive Privilege When He Tried To Get Rid Of That Judge?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 05:57 PM
Original message
So Why Didn't Musharrif Claim Executive Privilege When He Tried To Get Rid Of That Judge?
He's as good as a dictator, yet the court ruled against him, re-instated the judge and now our news is saying he's lost face and power and his days are numbered? What's wrong with this picture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. They're more democratic in Afghanistan than here?
:shrug: Good question; maybe Musharrif knew he'd never get away with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Lord Love Us
They had people demonstrating in the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Uh, when did the US supreme court rule for exec privilege for Bush here?
Edited on Fri Jul-20-07 06:04 PM by Kagemusha
Every time since Nixon that the issue has gotten that far, the US supreme court turned the sitting president of the day down.

So why do you use as the basis of your argument that Musharraf DIDN'T claim executive privilege in suspending that judge? (Edit: As I see it, Musharraf did just that, and the court smacked him down.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Because Pakistan Isn't A Backwards Monarchy? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSdemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's sad for everyone that we now essentially identify Supreme Court judges as partisans
We are dangerously close to becoming completely untethered from the basic understandings that make the common law and our system of checks and balances work the way they should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC